Talk:Oxfam produces action plan after revelation of prostitution scandal on Haiti

Review of revision 4384834 [Not ready]

Revision 4384834 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 03:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: The thing that is suitable for a focal event, and its associated answer to when, should be up at the front of the lede; instead, it's in the short second sentence at the end of the lede, following the quite long sentence about what is going to happen. See next point, about future. Do not say that something is going to happen. See WN:Future; we are not psychic, we do not know for certain what is going to happen in the future; say something is planed or scheduled or some such, or say it "is to happen" (which leaves out the precise verb, but hopefully the conditions under which it would happen are clear from context), but don't say it will happen. This problem occurs repeatedly through the article, starting in the lede and continuing. On a lesser (but still important) note, the sources should be ordered from most recent publication date to least recent; evidently some of the later ones are not in order. "heavy disrepute" seems a judgemental term; present the facts and let the reader judge. If a term is wanted there for a summary sentence leading in to the paragraph, perhaps "heavy criticism"? We would need to move along with this, as it's now on its third day (if the approval happened on Thursday); the third day being the last of the ordinary discretionary period for freshness. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 4384834 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 03:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: The thing that is suitable for a focal event, and its associated answer to when, should be up at the front of the lede; instead, it's in the short second sentence at the end of the lede, following the quite long sentence about what is going to happen. See next point, about future. Do not say that something is going to happen. See WN:Future; we are not psychic, we do not know for certain what is going to happen in the future; say something is planed or scheduled or some such, or say it "is to happen" (which leaves out the precise verb, but hopefully the conditions under which it would happen are clear from context), but don't say it will happen. This problem occurs repeatedly through the article, starting in the lede and continuing. On a lesser (but still important) note, the sources should be ordered from most recent publication date to least recent; evidently some of the later ones are not in order. "heavy disrepute" seems a judgemental term; present the facts and let the reader judge. If a term is wanted there for a summary sentence leading in to the paragraph, perhaps "heavy criticism"? We would need to move along with this, as it's now on its third day (if the approval happened on Thursday); the third day being the last of the ordinary discretionary period for freshness. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

@De Wikischim: --Pi zero (talk) 03:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Pi zero: I've tried to address the issues above as much as possible. The main focus is three days old now (unfortunately I was not able to write this article already on Friday), which is the maximum term for "freshness" according to your criteria, I thought? I had learnt earlier that even 4 days is still allowable. So to be honest, I don't fully get why it would already by now be stale. De Wikischim (talk) 08:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I've now broadened the focus from the establishment of the commission to the whole action plan, and accordingly changed the title. This plan was presented on Friday, so you can now consider that the main date, instead of Thursday. De Wikischim (talk) 10:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@De Wikischim: I could get into all sorts of esoterica, but, bottom line, if no other factors cause premature staleness the limit is the end of the third day after; in this case, the event was on Thursday, today is Sunday on Wikinews (which keeps UTC), so we've got about eleven and a quarter hours. I have no clue at this moment what I will or won't be able to do with the articles on the queue in the next eleven hours. --Pi zero (talk) 12:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Pi zero: Sorry, but did you actually read my previous (last) comment? The focus of the main event is on Friday now, because it is no longer about the establishment of the commission only, which happened one day earlier, but about the presentation of the whole action plan. See also the new title. I have added a new source which states that the action plan itself was presented on Friday. So the main event is actually 2 days old now, not 3. For the rest, have you already noticed that I made a lot of new adaptations this morning? I can't tell it at all from your reaction. De Wikischim (talk) 12:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@De Wikischim: I tried to make a quick reply to your question about three days, having only just woken up, before reviewing another article first. I'd noticed you'd asked about 3 days versus 4 days at the water cooler. I had indeed missed that important point about your remarks here, and I have not even attempted yet to look in detail at recent changes to this particular article (since I'm ramping up for a different article at this moment). It's good to know this article has an additional 24 hours on its clock (though over the years I've only increased my belief in Murphy's law). --Pi zero (talk) 13:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks for explaining. I'll keep an eye on this and await your further comments. De Wikischim (talk) 13:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

By the way, should you not have enough time left for this, is it possible that another revisor (such as @SVTCobra:) does it instead? De Wikischim (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

If someone else wants to pick it up, I've certainly no objection. --Pi zero (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Leading paragraph

First paragraph: "On Friday, international charity organization Oxfam unveiled an action plan to improve its safeguarding systems and whole internal culture. The plan includes the establishment of a special independent "High-Level Commission on Sexual Misconduct, Accountability and Culture Change", which was already approved on Thursday, as well as other measures such as an immediate injection of money. The reason behind this is the public revelation of sexual misbehaviour on Haiti by some Oxfam members in 2010."

WN:5W:

1. Who: international charity organization Oxfam (any particular person?)
2. What: unveiled an action plan to improve its safeguarding systems and whole internal culture - is this an actionable plan, to improve these things over what time span? Often these plans come with phrases like 'to improve this and this this year' or 'to improve that within the next two or five years' etc.

   "The plan includes the establishment of a special independent "High-Level Commission on Sexual Misconduct, Accountability and Culture Change", which was already approved on Thursday, as well as other measures such as an immediate injection of money. " what is the 'immediate injection of money' and how would this money be spent?

3. When: On Friday - any particular time?
4. Why: 'The reason behind this is the public revelation of sexual misbehaviour on Haiti by some Oxfam members in 2010' -- why is it now taking action, in 2018, and not earlier? Missing date of the 'The Times' publication (03:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC))
5. How: unspecified - how the plan was unveiled - this is not specified?
6. Where: unspecified - was this revealed online or what?

--Gryllida 03:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Please specify the date of the offending 'The Times' publication in the story. (A sentence later in the story explains the 'why'. Reworded the first paragraph sentence to make this timing more clear. Also split some information from it into the second paragraph. ) --Gryllida 03:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Gryllida: This source confirms that the Times article was published on 9 February. I have now added that date to the lede too. De Wikischim (talk) 09:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Timing

"Executive director of Oxfam GB, Mark Goldring: "People put their trust in Oxfam and we betrayed that trust. What happened was a disgrace and we are absolutely committed to rooting out abuse across the organisation. These problems cannot all be solved by Oxfam alone, and we will work with the government, the Charity Commission, women’s rights organisations and others in the sector to implement urgent reforms." When did this happen? --Gryllida 04:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

He said it last week, according to the source - Sorry but I can't tell exactly when. Why is this so important? De Wikischim (talk) 09:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

"An article appeared in The Times last week which revealed that some members of Oxfam GB had hired prostitutes during sexual parties." When did this happen? --Gryllida 04:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I believe it was on Friday 9 February.De Wikischim (talk) 09:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

"This happened during the 2010 mission on Haiti, which had been set up because of the big earthquake of that year." OK --Gryllida 04:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

"Former staff which had worked in Chad in 2006 now claim that women apparently working as prostitutes were repeatedly invited into the team house." When did this happen and according to whom and what is Chad? --Gryllida 04:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I believe it is not exactly known when the sexual parties happened, nor is this the case for the practices in Chad, or who exactly has claimed this. They seem to be some former Oxfam staff members, but I guess their privacy is an important factor here too. Sorry, but does it really need to be explained here that Chad is a country in Africa? There is already an internal link. De Wikischim (talk) 09:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

"In reaction, about 1700 donors of the Dutch affiliate, Oxfam Novib, stopped donating within only a few days." When did this happen? --Gryllida 04:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

You can check that in the Dutch source below, NOS Nieuws (you only have to understand Dutch for that). De Wikischim (talk) 09:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

"In the UK, the organisation has refrained from bidding for new funding from the Department for International Development." When did this happen? --Gryllida 04:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

See for example [1]. De Wikischim (talk) 09:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

"Deputy chief executive Penny Lawrence resigned last Monday because of the scandal." - OK --Gryllida 04:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

"Byanyima has promised to build up a new organizational culture which will no longer tolerate such behaviour, which necessitates the measures described hereabove." Who is Byanyima and when did they promise this? --Gryllida 04:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

It has been explained earlier in the text who she is, i.e. the main executive director of Oxfam. There is an internal link to her WP article too. Is this not clear enough? De Wikischim (talk) 09:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I now see the explanation and internal link had gone lost in an earlier edit (not done by me, I believe). De Wikischim (talk) 09:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Review of revision 4385358 [Passed]

Revision 4385358 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: This was a very difficult review. In the long run, we rely on reporters to work at the collaboration by taking measures to make the review process as smooth as possible. Failing to find something in the sources is very stressful for the reviewer, and compounded by a very large set of sources (as here). Argh. Glad to get the story out, though; it's relevant. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4385358 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: This was a very difficult review. In the long run, we rely on reporters to work at the collaboration by taking measures to make the review process as smooth as possible. Failing to find something in the sources is very stressful for the reviewer, and compounded by a very large set of sources (as here). Argh. Glad to get the story out, though; it's relevant. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

• I realize your process of acclimation here is going slowly; take a look at what was needful during the review, as a guide to what can be done for future reviews to go more smoothly. (Aspire eventually to write articles whose review is supremely unstressful.)

  In this case, one of the stressful-failures-to-find was something that I subsequently discovered was raised here on the collaboration page (in the midst of a large and messy discussion), and a source for it was actually provided here; for some reason it was not added to the article. (Shifting such a source to the Sources section where it belongs, constructing a citation for it in the process, is something a reviewer might choose to treat as in their purview, but certainly not within their responsibilities; besides which in this case if I'd taken time to do it the review wouldn't have been completed in time.) --Pi zero (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)